What can we say about the most treacherous act of Judas Iscariot which betrayed Our Lord into the hands of the enemy? We would say that this evil man, one of the first chosen Twelve Apostles, committed the most damnable act by his own free-will against the precepts of God and His Church. We can say along with Our Lord, "It were better for him, if that man had not been born." (Mark 14:21)
Now just imagine someone today coming along and apologizing in the name of the Catholic Church for this evil deed saying that the Church is sorry for its past mistakes! As though the Church Herself were guilty of this act of one of Her leaders!
Fortunately we have not yet to see anyone attempt such an apology for Judas. Such an apology would be not only doctrinally false it would be a blasphemy against the Christ and His Church. This would be an implicit denial of one of the Four Marks of the Church:
the Church's Holiness - where we see it written in the Nicene Creed, "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic".
This would be nothing but an attack against the very Nature of the Catholic Church. A very, very serious matter.
Such an act would be doctrinally false because the Church is "Holy" by its very nature. The sins of her members do not reflect on the intrinsic Holiness of the Church because they are sins of the individual, done by the free-will of the individual - not of the Church.
Sins are acts committed against the precepts of Catholicism and against the Will of God. Regardless of whether even a Bishop attempts to commit an act of immorality, or to teach a false doctrine "in the name of the Church", the act would only be, in reality, a personal, individual sin of which the Catholic Church has no guilty part.
The Church remains "Holy" even though Her members are sinners just as the Church remains "One" even though some of Her members have broken away through heresy or schism.

Today we unfortunately have a serious situation similar to what has been described above.
There are forces both within and without the Church which are pushing to make the Catholic Church appear before the public as being guilty in part for the abuses in history.
The anti-Catholic mass media delights in such things and knows how to present them in a way that harms the reputation of the Church. These apologies are all the more dangerous because they are being made to look "forgiving" and "humble" but are nothing but an implicit blasphemy against the nature of Christ's Holy Church.
The Catholic Church cannot, and does not, apologize for the sins of Her members as though the Church Herself had a part in those sins. The Church has always been quite clear in Her contemporary condemnations of all immorality and heresy.
The idea that the Church would have sinners, and even wolves, false brethren and heretics amongst the faithful, is clearly found in Holy Scripture. Hundreds of years ago there were many abuses among the clergy of the Church (and still are). It is not surprising then that, for example, we had at least one Pope who had some illegitimate children. A terrible sin and quite scandalous, but such a sin is the sin of the individual man; it is NOT to be imputed in any way to the Church whose Doctrine is Holy and is clearly contrary to such sinful acts.
Read the words of St. Francis de Sales, who was declared a "Doctor of the Church" in 1877, as he speaks of the Protestants who had fallen into the same error of blaming the Church:

"it is well known that the occasion they pretend to have for their division and departure is the error, the ignorance, the idolatry, which they aver to be in the Church they have abandoned, while it is a thing perfectly certain that the Church in her general body cannot be scandalous, or scandalised, being like her Lord, who communicates to her by grace and particular assistance what is proper to him by nature: .....it cannot be said that she gives, takes, or receives any scandal. Those then who are scandalised in her do all the wrong and have all the fault: their scandal has no other subject than their own malice...."
We must also take a glance at the Protestant Revolution which has been incorrectly termed the "Reformation". [St. Francis de Sales said, "the name of Reformed is a blasphemy against Our Lord, who has so perfectly formed and sanctified his Church in his blood, that it must never take other form than his all lovely Spouse, of pillar and ground of truth. One may reform the nations in particular, but not the Church or religion. She was rightly formed, change of formation is called heresy or irreligion."]
At the time of the Revolution there were many abuses among the clergy (there were also many Saints). Many clergy gave scandal but it was not Holy Mother Church that gave the scandal. And the Church teaches that it is a sin to "take scandal" even though those who give it also sin personally.
Martin Luther, the prime leader of the revolution, recognized many abuses but instead of acting virtuously and obediently, he sinfully "took scandal" by the actions of individual clergy and fell into that error of which we now speak, i.e., attributing the sins of individual clergy to that of Holy Mother Church. He therefore apostatized from the Faith, fell into far more abuses than he originally accused others of committing, and cursed the Vicar of Christ until his death. His first error of taking scandal and attributing the blame for the abuses to the Institution of the Church lead to his tragedy.

This very same error is now showing its ugly head again.
Be on the lookout for movements which, under the guise of humility and meekness, apologize for the sins of the Church in the past and thus, in a very subtle manner, deny that the Church is "Holy" and cannot sin. Likewise one must be wary of that current movement which seeks to undermine another Mark of the Church - that the Church is "One" - by falsely suggesting that the Church will not be "One" until the separated brethren return to the Church.
We know this is false, however, because from the beginning of the Catholic Church there have been members who have separated themselves from the Church by infidelity without ever effecting the Oneness of the nature of the Church. Since when did the Church ever become more, or less, than "One" because an individual or group denied some of Her Doctrines? Read an excerpt from the 1929 encyclical "Mortalium Animos" condemning this error:

"here it will be opportune to expound and to reject a certain false opinion which lies at the root of this question and of that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of Christian Churches. Those who favor this view constantly quote the words of Christ, "That they may be one ... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd" (John xvii. 21, x. 16), in the sense that Christ thereby merely expressed a desire or a prayer which as yet has not been granted."